MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128976804 · doi:10.1177/0022343313519666

Forced marriage as a political project

2014· article· en· W2128976804 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peace Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForced marriageContradictionPoliticsPromiscuityResistance (ecology)Power (physics)Sexual violenceSociologyGender studiesCriminologyLawPolitical repressionPolitical sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the most vexing contradictions about the Uganda originated rebel group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is the fact that it institutionalized forced marriage on the one hand, while actively discouraging sexually immoral behavior on the other: rape, sexual violence, and promiscuity both within the group and outside it were punishable by severe beating or death. What explains this contradiction? The article suggests that in addition to maintaining discipline and control over a diverse and reluctant group, forced marriage and the regulation of sexual relations reproduced a political project of imagining a ‘new Acholi’ nation. The article draws on original data collected in focus group discussions with former commanders and wives to commanders to discuss the historical evolution of this vision, how the LRA enforced rules regarding sexual behavior, and finally, the way forced marriage implicated women and girls in the organization of power and domination in the group until it was forced from permanent bases in Sudan in 2002.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.033
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.015
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peace ResearchSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207